I understand what you mean; I feel exactly the same way. I walk into a church today, and generally my first instinct is to walk back out. I find there's far too much preoccupation with frivolous details, or at least what I would consider to be frivolous details. God's love appears to have taken a backseat to legalism. It saddens me greatly.

Yes, I agree. The churches are wells without the living water. It's time for people to come directly to God and to develop a relationship with Him personally. Not listening to preachers, but listening to what God has to say directly. Preachers might be well meaning and all, but most have been misled by an organized institution of religious Christianity which lives by the letter of the law and lacks a real daily relationship with a real Awesome God.

I do not consider myself a part of religious Christianity anymore, but I sure love my Maker! I love Jesus who came to be our example in how God wants us to be. I am a follower of Jesus and in love with God. And it is so refreshing and exciting and real!

Christianity is clearly the religion of Jesus' early followers, but I wonder how close it is to the religion of Jesus himself. A lot of us love the Christian traditions and try earnestly to follow in Jesus' footsteps, but are a bit jaded with the narrow view the mainstream churches present of his life and message. I wouldn't begin to speculate on what is or is not true, but I find myself wondering if there might have been a whole lot more to Jesus than the Biblical narrative reveals. Is it plausible that his role as Christ and son of God may have been only a very thin slice of what the beloved teacher from Nazareth was really all about? There are, after all, noncanonical writings, stories and legends scattered throughout history that paint Jesus as a very intriguing fellow; but they are difficult to come by. The church fathers long ago declared the bulk of them heretical and made every effort to destroy them. And that is a shame. I would love to get together with anyone who feels, as I do, that Christianity, if we are permitted to approach it with an openminded imagination, is a wondrous and beautiful thing and that it would be sad indeed to have it fall away--just at a time when the world is in dire need of uplifting--simply because so many modern-thinking folks have grown cynical of the approach taken by the mainline churches. (Reed from the Naoi Meadow Way)

Christianity is clearly the religion of Jesus' early followers, but I wonder how close it is to the religion of Jesus himself. A lot of us love the Christian traditions and try earnestly to follow in Jesus' footsteps, but are a bit jaded with the narrow view the mainstream churches present of his life and message. I wouldn't begin to speculate on what is or is not true, but I find myself wondering if there might have been a whole lot more to Jesus than the Biblical narrative reveals. Is it plausible that his role as Christ and son of God may have been only a very thin slice of what the beloved teacher from Nazareth was really all about? There are, after all, noncanonical writings, stories and legends scattered throughout history that paint Jesus as a very intriguing fellow; but they are difficult to come by. The church fathers long ago declared the bulk of them heretical and made every effort to destroy them. And that is a shame. I would love to get together with anyone who feels, as I do, that Christianity, if we are permitted to approach it with an openminded imagination, is a wondrous and beautiful thing and that it would be sad indeed to have it fall away--just at a time when the world is in dire need of uplifting--simply because so many modern-thinking folks have grown cynical of the approach taken by the mainline churches. (Reed from the Naoi Meadow Way)

Click to expand...

The problem with the non-canonical material is that it's all later, and doesn't have the kind of Jewish background that the canonical Gospels do. Some people find a Gnostic perspective attractive. If you do, fine. But I'm not aware of many scholars that think they have much independent information about Jesus. Thomas is a possible exception. Personally I'm skeptical about it.

Have you looked at writers such as Borg? He draws a portrait of Jesus based pretty tightly on the Gospels, particularly the Synoptics. I think it's fairly coherent. A number of people in the mainline churches and some of the more liberal end of the evangelical spectrum accept that kind of view. N T Wright's book "How God Became King" is another approach from a similar perspective, though Wright tends to be slightly more conservative than Borg. Or Brian McLaren's books. You might want to look at things like this that are based on a recent critical reading of the canonical material before you start looking at more dubious sources.

Yes, I agree. The churches are wells without the living water. It's time for people to come directly to God and to develop a relationship with Him personally. Not listening to preachers, but listening to what God has to say directly. Preachers might be well meaning and all, but most have been misled by an organized institution of religious Christianity which lives by the letter of the law and lacks a real daily relationship with a real Awesome God.

I do not consider myself a part of religious Christianity anymore, but I sure love my Maker! I love Jesus who came to be our example in how God wants us to be. I am a follower of Jesus and in love with God. And it is so refreshing and exciting and real!

Click to expand...

AMEN!!! So agree with you!You sound just like me, this is also the view and feelings I hold.

It seems that a fair few people are preoccupied on completing a "tick list" of things to do to ensure they are Christian, rather than developing a relationship with God.

Thanks, Hedrick, for the references. I am always looking to read new takes on the subject. I think my point is this: It is a shame that so many pragmatic, pondering people, many of them Christian at heart, find themselves forced to forego the wonderful traditions of Christianity and the uplifting message of Jesus simply because they have a difficult time with the metaphysical stuff. The church I am working on (The Lucan Chapel) is intended to put more emphasis on making a more peaceful, more beautiful, world and teaching one another how to enjoy it (The Naoi Meadow Way) than on fretting selfishly about one's own sinfulness and future salvation. In today's crazy world, we need a superhero we can emulate. To me, the living Jesus is that role model. I know, the Gnostics and others have tried such approaches many times in the past. But were they necessarily wrong? Maybe they were just ahead of their time.

Thanks, Hedrick, for the references. I am always looking to read new takes on the subject. I think my point is this: It is a shame that so many pragmatic, pondering people, many of them Christian at heart, find themselves forced to forego the wonderful traditions of Christianity and the uplifting message of Jesus simply because they have a difficult time with the metaphysical stuff. The church I am working on (The Lucan Chapel) is intended to put more emphasis on making a more peaceful, more beautiful, world and teaching one another how to enjoy it (The Naoi Meadow Way) than on fretting selfishly about one's own sinfulness and future salvation. In today's crazy world, we need a superhero we can emulate. To me, the living Jesus is that role model. I know, the Gnostics and others have tried such approaches many times in the past. But were they necessarily wrong? Maybe they were just ahead of their time.

Click to expand...

The Gnostics were not wrong in wanting to follow a living Jesus. However I think we can find a good enough basis in the actual historical Jesus to form a foundation for our living relationship with him. The Gnostics allowed their visions of Jesus to become separated from the actual historical Jesus. There are plenty of Christians today, liberal and conservative, who follow them, but I prefer to base my concept of Jesus on the historical Jesus, to the extent that we can know him.

The Gnostics were not wrong in wanting to follow a living Jesus. However I think we can find a good enough basis in the actual historical Jesus to form a foundation for our living relationship with him. The Gnostics allowed their visions of Jesus to become separated from the actual historical Jesus. There are plenty of Christians today, liberal and conservative, who follow them, but I prefer to base my concept of Jesus on the historical Jesus, to the extent that we can know him.

Click to expand...

I do, too. The problem is, we know almost nothing (factually) about the actual historical Jesus (something which, given the enormity of his influence, completely baffles me to say the least!). Even if you go out on a limb and presume the gospels to constitute an irrefutable factual account, they still shed almost no light at all on the man Jesus beyond his birth, one brief incident when he was twelve, a few things he reportedly did and said during his three year ministry, and his death. That gives us very little to go on. On the other hand, unbeknownst to most practicing Christians, there are other accounts out there which also seem to pertain to the man we call Jesus (or else to someone very closely resembling him). And, just as the gospels have not been proven true, these other accounts have not been proven false. So why not be open-minded and say that the life and message of the actual historical Jesus is 'open to speculation'? I agree that we should not jump to conclusions and blindly buy into all sorts of wild unsubstantiated tales and claims or, let alone, try to build a religion around them; but I do not believe it is sinful or unChristian for people who like to ponder to view them, at the very least, as 'interesting food for thought'.

When it comes to Spiritual things, I find that many people think the craziest things. Sometimes it's people in a well established church, but mostly it's people out of the Church.

There is quite a movement these days of people starting home churches, trying to be like what they perceive the original church in the book of Acts was. While I can understand the reasoning behind moving away from the established churches, I believe there is a danger simply because you now have nobody to be accountable to, or even any formal training in the bible.

I mean let's face it, a majority of people who are christians hardly even read their bible, and really don't know all of what is in the bible. With a situation like that, all sorts of crazy ideas can sprout. And quite honestly, it only takes a spark to get a fire going, and before you know it, you have a cult.

Of course I came to Christ waaaayyyy back in 1973. Does anyone remember the "Children Of God" back in those days? Talk about a cult!

I don't know what the answer is for this dilemma. If you're in a church does not agree with the bible, then I think you should ask the Lord to show you what to do or for a different church. I don't think you should just drop out though, because that is not scriptural. Also if you join a home church, you should make sure the leaders are accountable to someone besides themselves.

But what is the problem with your church? Is it the canned praise for 1 hr, where they start you off singing fast upbeat songs, and slowly work their way to the slower "close to God in a personal way" type of songs (according to a pre-defined graphical curve designed to prime you for the short message where they slip in a few good word, and maybe quote the bible a few times, and then let you go home just in time for the ball game? Time to move then IMO.

Many folks walk in a church today, and feel insulted when they pass the offering plate/basket. It doesn't matter if they say ahead of time, "if you're new, don't feel obligated to put anything in the basket", people still get uncomfortable about money.

Some people feel there should just be a donation box in the back, and for that reason will leave a church. I've felt that way myself sometimes, but it didn't make me want to leave the church. In many of the churches now-a-days, the support comes from 10% of the members, but the other 90%, is giving very little, or not at all. Pastors are very reluctant to talk about money to the congregations, simply because they are afraid of offending people. But the fact is, a pastor is an extremely difficult job, and I would not easily dismiss a church just because you don't like the way a certain pastor does things. While I say that, I am also reminded of some of the weirder pastors I have had, and to be honest, it was because 1) He was teaching things that disagreed with scriptures 2) I wasn't able to get anything out of what he was teaching every Sunday, as if he wasn't filled with the spirit.

I had one really great pastor one time (who's gone to the Lord now), and during the week, things were happening in our lives, and then on Sunday, there the pastor was talking about that subject. I mean this went on for several months, that without fail, he was talking about what was happening in my life the previous week. I tell you that is a church you want to stay at and support IMO.

Tigger45No one heals himself by wounding another.SupporterCF Senior AmbassadorAngels Team

Amen; I will only attend a church where the Holy Spirit is revealed. Keeping in mind the Holy Spirit is omnipresent. when we honor Him with an environment where the Spirit of truth is boldly proclamed and we indiviually are filled with His word and the communion of prayer I too typically receive a personal conformation of His persence from my daily life.

Why is everyone so quick to make an attempt to instill a sense of fear into someone considering leaving the church of today? What are you so afraid of?

Do you not know that Christ consist in the spirit and not the letter? He speaks of this himself in John 5:39, and again by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:17-18.

Perfect love casts out fear. So if you are truly of God, would it not be better for you to show him this side or your character as Christ did? You listed all these things of what he may become that are negative, but nothing positive.

Why is it thought that the only place one can be accountable is in a church?